The Familiarity Problem

Abstract Trauma does not remain confined to the relationship, household, or event in which it occurred. Repeated adversity can influence attachment, expectations of authority, emotion regulation, threat appraisal, trust, self-concept, and the strategies a person uses to preserve safety and belonging. Those adaptations may later appear in domains that look unrelated on the surface, including employment.

This paper develops a cross-domain familiarity model using nursing as a case study. It does not argue that trauma survivors consciously seek abusive employers or that earlier adversity produces one predictable occupational outcome. Instead, it asks whether learned relational expectations can influence what workers notice, normalize, manage, or tolerate once power, instability, and dependency reappear in a different setting. Current evidence supports several component pathways, including associations between childhood maltreatment and insecure adult attachment, attachment and workplace mental health, attachment-related threat appraisal among nurses, adverse childhood experiences and healthcare-worker wellbeing, abusive supervision, workplace bullying, moral injury, and burnout. Direct longitudinal evidence establishing a causal pathway from prior trauma to toxic-job selection remains limited.

1. Trauma does not respect categories People often describe recovery as though experience can be compartmentalized. A person leaves a controlling relationship, recognizes the manipulation, and expects the lesson to remain inside the category of romance. But the nervous system does not organize learning according to legal or social labels such as partner, manager, parent, physician, coworker, or employer. It learns contingencies: what predicts danger, what preserves connection, what reduces conflict, what power feels like, and what behavior appears necessary to remain safe.

A 2026 three-level meta-analysis of 211 studies and more than 82,000 participants found childhood maltreatment significantly associated with both adult attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance. The associations were not destiny, but they were consistent enough to matter. A 2025 narrative review of attachment and workplace mental health likewise concluded that attachment strategies are relevant to stress regulation, job experiences, workplace relationships, burnout, and wellbeing (Li et al., 2026; McConnell et al., 2025).

The more useful question is not whether a person is deliberately recreating the past. It is whether earlier experience changes the rules by which later situations are interpreted.

2. Predictive processing: the brain as an expectation-generating system Predictive-processing models describe perception as an active process in which the brain uses prior experience to generate expectations about incoming information and then updates those expectations when reality differs. A 2024 framework applied this concept to complex posttraumatic stress disorder, proposing that prolonged traumatic experience can alter predictions related to self, emotion, and relationships. A separate 2024 systematic review of 81 studies examined how adverse childhood experiences may relate to later threat and reward learning mechanisms, while emphasizing substantial methodological heterogeneity (Putica et al., 2024; Ruge et al., 2024).

This model is useful because it avoids a simplistic claim that the traumatized brain wants repetition. Prediction is not preference. Familiarity is not consent. A person can dislike a pattern intensely while still possessing highly practiced responses to it. The practical consequence is that an unhealthy environment can be easier to navigate than a healthy but unfamiliar one, not because the unhealthy environment is desired, but because its rules are already known.

In relational adversity, those rules may include monitoring mood, preventing conflict, becoming useful, accommodating quickly, minimizing personal needs, assuming responsibility for other people's reactions, or waiting for intermittent approval. When comparable contingencies appear at work, the behavior can reappear without the worker consciously connecting the two settings.

3. From relationship rules to workplace rules Cross-domain repetition becomes easier to miss when the vocabulary changes. In a relationship, monitoring another person's mood may be recognized as fear. At work it may be called managing up. In a relationship, persistent access demands may be recognized as control. At work they may be praised as availability. In a relationship, sacrificing personal needs to preserve connection may be recognized as self-erasure. In healthcare it can be reframed as dedication.

This is not evidence that professionalism is pathological. Many of the same behaviors can arise from healthy values, training, skill, temperament, and genuine choice. The distinction is agency: can the person choose when to deploy the behavior, or does safety feel dependent on continuing it?

A 2025 study of 140 hospital nurses provides a useful bridge. Anxious attachment was indirectly associated with greater burnout and intention to leave through threat appraisal and subsequent conflict responses. The study was cross-sectional and used hypothetical scenarios, so it cannot establish causality, but it demonstrates that attachment- related differences can shape how nurses process interpersonal conflict at work (Gur et al., 2025).

4. Nursing as a high-resolution case study Nursing is unusually revealing because the profession legitimately rewards vigilance, anticipation, emotional regulation, crisis competence, and caregiving. Nurses must notice subtle deterioration, remain functional during emergencies, communicate across hierarchy, and act when others are frightened or impaired. These are clinical strengths.

Yet the same profession can expose workers to chronic understaffing, unpredictable scheduling, violence, bullying, incivility, moral distress, and abusive supervision. NIOSH identifies long or unpredictable hours, exposure to suffering, hazardous conditions, administrative burden, low schedule control, staffing problems, harassment, and violence as important healthcare-worker stressors. Its Impact Wellbeing initiative emphasizes changing workplace policies and practices rather than placing the entire burden on individual resilience (CDC/NIOSH, 2024).

The collision is important: a worker can be exceptionally good at surviving the very conditions an organization should be correcting.

5. The workplace hazards are measurable The nursing literature establishes that dysfunctional workplace behavior is not merely a matter of hurt feelings. A 2024 systematic review of abusive supervision identified adverse outcomes across affect, performance, relationships, cognition, health, wellbeing, and nursing care. A 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis of 3,730 nurses found workplace bullying moderately associated with job stress, burnout, and secondary traumatic stress and negatively associated with compassion satisfaction (Labrague, 2024; Galanis et al., 2024).

Burnout also has consequences beyond the worker. A 2024 JAMA Network Open systematic review and meta- analysis of 85 studies involving 288,581 nurses found burnout associated with poorer safety climate, more medication errors and adverse events, more missed care, lower patient satisfaction, and lower nurse-assessed quality of care. Most included studies were cross-sectional, so causal direction cannot be assumed, but the consistency of the association makes systems-level prevention clinically relevant (Li et al., 2024).

Moral injury adds another layer. A 2025 systematic review found moral injury among nurses associated with anxiety, depression, and poorer quality of life. When workers believe patients or colleagues will suffer if they withdraw, overextension can acquire moral meaning, making the decision to set limits far more difficult (Anastasi et al., 2025).

6. The familiarity mechanism The proposed familiarity model has six stages. First, adversity teaches relational contingencies. Second, those contingencies become expectations about power, safety, conflict, and belonging. Third, a later workplace contains structurally similar cues even though the setting is different. Fourth, practiced responses activate quickly: monitor, appease, overfunction, anticipate, endure, repair. Fifth, successful adaptation reduces immediate conflict and may be rewarded by the organization. Sixth, that success can delay recognition that the environment itself is unhealthy.

The crucial mechanism is not attraction to harm. It is efficient adaptation to recognizable contingencies. The employee who knows how to calm an unpredictable supervisor may initially experience herself as competent, not endangered. The nurse who can rescue an impossible assignment may experience herself as responsible, not exploited. The person who can endure more than peers may interpret endurance as evidence that the situation is manageable.

This can create a paradox: the worker most capable of surviving a dysfunctional system may generate the least visible evidence that the system is dysfunctional.

7. Evidence that complicates the model A responsible trauma model must also account for evidence that adversity can be followed by different, even opposite, patterns. In a 2026 cross-sectional study of 481 nurses in one Chinese tertiary hospital, workplace incivility was associated with poorer health, but greater adverse-childhood-experience scores weakened the measured relationship between incivility and suboptimal health. The authors interpreted the moderation through a stress- inoculation model. Because the study was cross-sectional, conducted in one hospital, and measured health rather than job selection, it cannot prove resilience caused by adversity, but it directly cautions against assuming trauma always increases workplace vulnerability (Zhang & Zhang, 2026).

A 2025 survey of healthcare employees found adversity common and linked fewer positive childhood experiences with poorer workplace and wellbeing outcomes; nurses in the sample also reported lower resilience and greater workplace violence than other roles. Again, the design was cross-sectional. Taken together, the studies suggest heterogeneity: trauma history may be associated with vulnerability in some pathways, adaptation or stress inoculation in others, and different outcomes depending on context, resources, support, and the type of adversity measured (Williamson et al., 2025).

That complexity strengthens the central thesis. The point is not that trauma produces one occupational personality. The point is that relational history is one of the variables shaping how workplace events are perceived and managed.

8. Recognition is the intervention point If cross-domain repetition partly operates through recognition, intervention does not require pathologizing workers. Individuals can learn to identify structure rather than character. Instead of asking whether a manager resembles a former partner, they can ask what happens when they set a boundary, disagree, report a problem, make an error, or stop overfunctioning.

Organizations can do something even more important: design systems that do not depend on vulnerability. Staffing should not rely on chronic heroics. Respect should not depend on compliance. Reporting should not expose workers to retaliation. Violence should not be normalized as part of the profession. Leadership should not convert positional authority into emotional domination. Wellness programs should not substitute for correcting known hazards.

This is where trauma-informed organizational practice differs from simply teaching employees about trauma. The objective is not to identify which worker has a trauma history. It is to reduce the organizational value of exploitative dynamics for everyone.

9. Implications for future research The most important unanswered question is prospective. Longitudinal research should examine whether specific trauma histories predict occupational selection, tolerance thresholds, reporting behavior, supervisor-response strategies, boundary enforcement, or duration of exposure to harmful workplaces after controlling for socioeconomic constraints, profession, labor-market conditions, personality, and prior mental health.

Research should also distinguish preference from familiarity, and selection from retention. Someone may not select a toxic employer at all; the meaningful difference may emerge later in how quickly the person identifies the toxicity, how much adaptation occurs before leaving, or how the worker interprets authority. Those are different hypotheses and should be tested separately.

Conclusion Trauma can become encompassing without becoming obvious. A person may recognize a pattern in one domain and miss its architecture in another because the language, roles, incentives, and consequences have changed.

Nursing shows why this matters. The profession can transform vigilance, caregiving, endurance, and crisis functioning into genuine clinical excellence. But no healthcare organization should be allowed to use those strengths as substitutes for safe staffing, accountable leadership, functional reporting systems, or basic respect.

The goal of recovery is not to become incapable of functioning in chaos. It is to regain enough agency to decide where that capacity belongs. Familiarity can explain why a pattern is easy to navigate. It cannot determine whether the pattern deserves a place in one's life.

10. Schemas: the rules beneath the story Attachment is not the only route by which early experience can remain active. Schema-based models describe broad beliefs and expectations about the self, other people, and relationships that can organize later interpretation. A 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis specifically examined maladaptive schemas among victims of violence and described schemas as patterns shaping interpretation of self, others, and the world (Uvelli et al., 2025). Experiences of abandonment, mistrust, defectiveness, subjugation, self-sacrifice, or unrelenting standards can become lenses through which new situations are evaluated. The relevance to work is conceptual but important: an employment relationship can activate beliefs about worth, approval, authority, and obligation even when the original learning occurred elsewhere.

The distinction between memory and rule matters. A person may rarely think about a former relationship at work and still respond according to a rule that relationship strengthened. The rule may be: keep the powerful person pleased; never become the burden; anticipate needs before they are spoken; prove your value through sacrifice; do not leave while others still need you. Those rules can become invisible precisely because they are experienced as common sense rather than memory.

11. Selection, retention, and delayed recognition are different hypotheses Popular language often collapses three separate questions into one: Why did a person take the job? Why did the person remain? And why did recognition take time? The evidence base is not strong enough to treat these as one mechanism.

Job selection occurs under constraints including salary, benefits, geography, licensure, specialty access, family responsibilities, immigration status, debt, labor-market conditions, and available alternatives. A nurse can enter a healthy-looking organization and discover dysfunction only after employment begins. A worker may also recognize problems immediately but remain because leaving is financially or professionally costly. Trauma-informed analysis must therefore avoid converting structural constraint into psychology.

The cross-domain familiarity model is most defensible as a hypothesis about appraisal, normalization, coping, boundary enforcement, reporting, and retention after problematic dynamics emerge. It may eventually prove relevant to occupational selection, but that question requires prospective research rather than assumption.

12. Normalization can change what gets reported Recognition also affects data. Workplace violence and mistreatment can be systematically undercounted when workers believe the behavior is part of the job, reporting will not change anything, or leadership will blame the reporter. A 2025 qualitative study of nurses identified emotional barriers, organizational ineffectiveness, hierarchy, and normalization among factors discouraging workplace-violence reporting (Elsharkawy et al., 2025).

This creates an important measurement problem. An organization may appear safer because workers have adapted to not reporting what happens. The same worker who efficiently normalizes a problem may be less likely to generate the documentation that would reveal the problem to leadership. In that sense, normalization is not only a psychological phenomenon; it can become an organizational blind spot.

13. Agency is the central variable The most useful distinction across these processes is agency. A behavior may be adaptive, professional, compassionate, or trauma-linked depending on context and function. Working late once because an emergency requires it is different from believing one is not allowed to refuse chronic uncompensated overextension. Reading emotional cues to communicate effectively is different from believing safety depends on preventing a supervisor's anger.

Agency shifts the inquiry away from labeling behavior and toward choice. Can the worker stop? Can the worker disagree? Can the worker tolerate another person's disappointment? Can the worker recognize a limit before collapse? Can the worker leave without interpreting departure as moral failure? Those questions are clinically and organizationally richer than asking whether someone is simply resilient or traumatized.

14. A research agenda for the familiarity problem Future studies should measure trauma history without assuming impairment and should include positive childhood experiences, social support, attachment, socioeconomic constraints, occupational culture, and current organizational conditions. Prospective designs could test whether these variables predict how quickly employees identify incivility, how often they report it, whether they overfunction in response, how they use internal complaint systems, and how long they remain after repeated boundary violations.

Nursing research should also distinguish patient-generated threat from organizational threat. Vigilance toward a deteriorating patient may be clinically protective, while vigilance toward a punitive manager may reflect a workplace hazard. Combining those experiences under a single stress score can obscure what should be treated, what should be trained, and what should be redesigned.

Finally, research must preserve the possibility of post-adversity strength. The 2026 ACE/incivility study is a reminder that prior adversity can interact with later stress in unexpected ways. Trauma-informed science should be able to describe sensitivity, resilience, avoidance, confrontation, overfunctioning, and rapid exit without forcing all survivors into one narrative.

15. Organizational ethics There is an ethical consequence to this model. If some employees are especially capable of adapting to unstable systems, an organization can benefit from their adaptation while remaining ignorant of its cost. This is particularly concerning in healthcare because the strongest adapters may be placed repeatedly in the most difficult assignments, relied upon to repair staffing failures, and praised for functioning without support.

A trauma-informed workplace should not identify survivors for special handling. It should remove the organizational incentives that reward self-erasure. Predictable policies, psychologically safe reporting, adequate staffing, accountable leadership, transparent discipline, protected rest, and meaningful worker participation benefit employees regardless of history.

Evidence & Citation Boundary This paper is a conceptual evidence synthesis, not an original empirical study. Existing evidence supports associations among adversity, adult attachment, workplace mental health, nursing incivility, abusive supervision, bullying, moral injury, burnout, and organizational conditions. Direct longitudinal evidence that trauma causes people to select toxic employers remains limited. The proposed cross-domain familiarity model is therefore a testable conceptual framework, not a deterministic causal rule.

Selected Sources

1. Li, S., Ma, Y., Cao, X., Liu, J., Qi, Y., & Chen, X. (2026). Childhood maltreatment and adult attachment: A three-level meta-analytic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380261455767

2. Putica, A. et al. (2024). Reconceptualizing complex posttraumatic stress disorder: A predictive processing framework for mechanisms and intervention. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 164, 105836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2024.105836

3. McConnell, D., Wong, G., & Ferrey, A. (2025). The relationship between attachment and mental health at work: A narrative review. Work, 81(3), 2833-2843. https://doi.org/10.1177/10519815251327313

4. Gur, A., Sher-Censor, E., Zisberg, A., & Gur-Yaish, N. (2025). Nurses' attachment styles, burnout and intention to leave: The role of cognitive appraisal and responses to conflicts with patients' relatives. Journal of Health Organization and Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHOM-04-2025-0191

5. Zhang, X., & Zhang, X. (2026). The moderating role of adverse childhood experiences in the relationship between workplace incivility and suboptimal health status among nurses. BMC Psychology, 14, 174. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-025-03932-1

6. Williamson, et al. (2025). Negative effects of adverse childhood experiences and absence of positive childhood experiences on healthcare employees: Survey findings built on 10 years of trauma-informed development. Frontiers. PMID 39835305.

7. Labrague, L. J. (2024). Abusive supervision and its relationship with nursing workforce and patient safety outcomes: A systematic review. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 46(1), 52-63. https://doi.org/10.1177/01939459231212402

8. Galanis, P., Moisoglou, I., Katsiroumpa, A., & Mastrogianni, M. (2024). Association between workplace bullying, job stress, and professional quality of life in nurses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Healthcare, 12(6), 623. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12060623

9. Li, L. Z., Yang, P., Singer, S. J., Pfeffer, J., Mathur, M. B., & Shanafelt, T. (2024). Nurse burnout and patient safety, satisfaction, and quality of care: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Network Open, 7(11), e2443059. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.43059

10. Anastasi, G., Gravante, F., Barbato, P., Bambi, S., Stievano, A., & Latina, R. (2025). Moral injury and mental health outcomes in nurses: A systematic review. Nursing Ethics, 32(3), 698-723. https://doi.org/10.1177/09697330241281376

11. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2024). Risk Factors for Stress and Burnout: Healthcare Workers. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

12. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2024). Impact Wellbeing: Professional Wellbeing and systems-level approaches for healthcare workers. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

13. Elsharkawy, N. B., et al. (2025). Barriers to reporting workplace violence: A qualitative study of nurses' perceptions in tertiary care settings. BMC Nursing, 24, 395. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-025-03039-3

14. Ruge, J., Ehlers, M. R., Kastrinogiannis, A., et al. (2024). How adverse childhood experiences get under the skin: A systematic review, integration and methodological discussion on threat and reward learning mechanisms. eLife, 13, e92700. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.92700

15. Uvelli, A., Floridi, M., Agrusti, G., & Franquillo, A. C. (2025). When adverse experiences influence the interpretation of ourselves, others and the world: A systematic review and meta-analysis of maladaptive schemas in victims of violence. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.70114